OpenBSD's Common Address Redundancy Protocol

Jessie writes "OpenBSD just gained high availability functionality in the form of a new protocol named CARP, the Common Address Redundancy Protocol. This feature was a long time in the coming due to Cisco's patent on VRRP, requiring the development of something completely new and more secure. This article on KernelTrap offers details on OpenBSD's impressive new protocol, from how it works to how it got its name."

Comments

Link requires login

[RT Alec]

The link provided requires a user name / password.

Re:Link requires login

[GeekWithGuns]

Link does not login. Just scroll over to the right about 1 page width. The page just renders badly under Mozilla.

Re:Link requires login

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using Mozilla and it looks fine to me...?

Re:Link requires login

[pgr0ss]

It renders fine in Firebird 0.7.

Re:Link requires login

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit shift-reload, and the page will then look fine...

Alternate name

[Nynaeve]

My favorite part:

Marc Balmer wrote:
> Was the name CARP deliberately choosen? There already exists CARP since 2001, see RFC 3040 (Cache Array Routing Protocol)

I suggested a different name (same four letters, different order, took a cheap shot at Cisco in the process), but Ryan didn't seem to care for it for some reason. 8)

BTW, the kerneltrap article renders perfectly in IE, but not Mozilla 1.4?!

Re:Alternate name

[bill_mcgonigle]

I suggested a different name (same four letters, different order, took a cheap shot at Cisco in the process), but Ryan didn't seem to care for it for some reason. 8)

Probably because Xerox has a trademark on PARC. Oh, wow, I just got a 35-year old joke.

Re:Alternate name

[Nynaeve]

PARC? I thought he meant 'CRAP'... did I not get the joke?

Death is redunandant..

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for living..

renders fine on Moz 1.5

[TheSHAD0W]

'nuf said.

Please RFC this

[geirt]

I understand that Theo and friends are pissed off by the IETF, but I really hope that they write an RFC for carp, so that we can have a compatible version for other OSes. Are there any detailed descriptions of CARP on the net yet ?

Re:Please RFC this

[gladbach]

absolutely. Get this into freebsd and linux, and we'd have a true winner on our hands. Yet another killer feature that would allow bsd and linux to continue to take over the enterprise

Re:Please RFC this

[maggotbrain_777]

Well, it's really not necessary to RFC the CARP protocol as it will not prevent it from being patented, if that is the case with VRRP. VRRP had been published in RFC form for quite some time(April 1998):Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol I'm not familiar with the detail regarding Cisco appropriating this protocol, though I though VRRP was developed as an alternate to Cisco's HSRP, and had been included in various competing load balancers(Alteon?), prior to Cisco implementing the protocol(actually prior to purchasing the CSS product line)

Re:Please RFC this

[Abcd1234]

Well, it's really not necessary to RFC the CARP protocol as it will not prevent it from being patented,

Umm, that isn't the point of standardizing the protocol at all. Creating an RFC defines a standard and reference which other implementors can refer to, and other implementations can claim to support. This is good for everyone, as it should help to improve interoperability. Besides, there needs to be a real description of this protocol written down *somewhere*, so why not make it an RFC, so it can be backed by the IETF as well?

Re:Please RFC this

[teemu.s]

why should other free operating systems take advantage of CARP? Did anyone care about UltraSparc III chip documentation? No, developers of other operating systems happily signed NDAs - knowing well that no other operating system can take advantage of this infos:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-975941.html

maybe totally intolerant and flameable - I dont represent anyone - but hey: wanna user carp? use penbsd;

BSD's failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Re:BSD's failure

[JShadow]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAA...oh man I love when that troll shows up. Always gives me a chuckle. har har....how dumb. :P

Tests were invalid...

[JShadow]

And that the tests were run unscientifically with the -CURRENT release...how dumb is that? Shouldn't a fair test be run with a -STABLE release? Silly, silly.

Re:hey wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lowdown is this: OpenBSD is almost dead.

OpenBSD is on its last legs and it is doubtful that it will last more than 18 months or so before OpenBSD is completely dead.

Failure?

[kyoko21]

It's hard to say failure when the top 50 uptime websites are all hosted on some variant of BSD. Crazy...